Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @04:23PM
from the set-in-stone dept.

DustyShadow writes "In the case of Blockowicz v. Williams, The US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals refused to force Ripoff Report to remove allegedly defamatory comments posted by a user. The Ripoff Report has a well-publicized no-takedown policy, even if the author wants to remove his/her post, so the Ripoff Report refused. The Blockowiczs then claimed that the Ripoff Report violated FRCP 65(d) because the Ripoff Report was 'in active concert or participation' with the initial posters by refusing the injunction's removal order. The district court (and the Court of Appeals) disagreed with the Blockowiczs. Absent the 'active concert or participation,' the website was outside the court's control. Ripoff Report has released a statement concerning this case: 'In keeping with our core mission of protecting speech to the fullest extent of the law, we decided that it was not just our right but also our duty to ask questions and dig deeper before we could comply with such an order. Other sites claim they support free speech, but when the going gets rough, they will usually protect their bottom line rather than the Constitutional rights and freedoms this country was founded upon. Unlike other sites, even when the speech involved is harsh or negative and even if our position sometimes generates negative press for us, we think that the First Amendment requires us to put our principles before our pocketbook and fight against censorship.'"

Precedent isn't exactly so black and white. If there is no contravening SCOTUS decision, then other lawyers will cite this decision and judges will evaluate it's relevance. Those other judges are always free to disagree, but they'll get slapped down if they're under any circuit court who's affirmed a similar decision.

There is also legal scholarship wherein this decision gets further analyzed, likely strengthening it. All that discussion can be brought to bear on future cases.

SCOTUS need not necessarily ever consider issues that lower courts have resolved satisfactorily & consistently. If however the circuit courts are split on an issue, then SCOTUS will invariably take up their favorite appeals, thus forcing all the lower courts into agreement.

Not quite true. SCOTUS has had several cases where ISPs and websites have been sued to have content taken down, where the ISP wasn't "in active concert" with the purveyors of the content. It allowed the hosting providers/webmasters/portals to be held harmless-- so long as the ISP/webmasters didn't edit or delete user-added content/comments, thus NOT providing a role that shapes the content. IF you don't touch the content, then you're not actively being involved. That's why the Seventh Circuit's language is what it is in this particular ligitation. IANAL, but understand the law and SCOTUS speech precendents well.

Of course, other US Agencies have taken down some websites based on another legal theory, but that hasn't been litigated yet. And in my opinion, they did this without probable cause and without due process.

Ahh thanks! So this case merely extends the existing SCOTUS decisions for ISPs to message boards. To me, that sounds like exactly the sort of legal precedent that SCOTUS might never need to even consider, as many judges will simply accept the existing SCOTUS decisions plus these arguments. Otherwise, they'd need to justify why the SCOTUS decisions for ISPs don't apply to message boards, which doesn't sound easy.

You're merely a transport until you do something that's not transport-like. If you do something that's not transport-like, then you're somehow become a part of the problem captioned in the litigation. Otherwise, you're just a neutral fact of the matter.

I'm still not connecting the dots here, in this case it seems they were hit with an injunction issued by the court not just a cease-and-desist letter. It can't be the intended meaning of this ruling that if a user uploads something to a provider, that provider can host the content forever in disregard of all laws. If an user uploaded say kiddie porn, could the provider then just turn around and say "as a policy we don't touch the content, so we refuse"? It's one thing to avoid self-censorship so the hoster

No, that's not quite the case. If the content is copyrighted material not owned by the uploader, then the ISP/site may or may not have knowledge of the copyright violation. In this case, DCMA notices in the US are what are frequently issued to the site, so as to take down the copyrighted or otherwise claimed material.

If you check the links, you'll see that defamation, and speech is the crux of the matter. Someone got slimed online, and holds the site responsible as well as the slimer. The courts have said t

The 1st Amendment is so misunderstood. Yes you have a right to speak. Yes the GOVERNMENT is forbidden from censoring speech in most cases. But the 1st Amendment is entirely concerned with what the Federal (and some say it extends to the states now by the 14th Amendment) can't do to you. A private entity is perfectly within their rights to censor itself, what it transmits, retransmits, etc. The right to speak is not a requirement to speak. Remember that the 5th Amendment is clear that we have an equal right to remain silent.

So this website isn't 'protecting the 1st Amendment' or 'required by the 1st Amendment' to leave a post up, especially if they know it is false. CAN they leave it up? Sure. SHOULD they? Perhaps, but at a minimum a modicum of responsibility should require they edit the post in question to include (even a small link) to the truth. That isn't censorship, it is seeking the Truth.

I think you yourself are misunderstanding the article and position of the website.

Their position is that the first amendment prohibits others from forcing them to take the defamatory material down. Nowhere did they claim that any law required that they themselves had to leave it up. And, BTW, they apparently did make some minor edits to the article for the exact reason you cite.

I think you are misunderstanding this case, or didn't read the summary.

The government issued an injunction to remove comments from the web site that the site refused to obey, which puts it squarely in First Amendment territory. Their claim to be protecting the First Amendment is perfectly valid, as that amounts to government censorship of speech. From TFA:

Plaintiffs got an injunction that ordered defendants to remove defamatory content from the web that defendants had posted. When the defendants did not comply with the injunction, plaintiffs asked the court to enforce the injunction against Ripoffreport.com, the website on which some of the defamatory content appeared.

I don't know where you got the notion that this is just a private entity acting without any government intervention or involvement.

The government issued an injunction to remove comments from the web site that the site refused to obey, which puts it squarely in First Amendment territory. Their claim to be protecting the First Amendment is perfectly valid, as that amounts to government censorship of speech

If the comment truly is defamatory, it carries no 1st Amendment protection and thus their entire claim is false.

Depends, it would also have to be false. Defamatory statements are perfectly acceptable in the US when they are true. The UK and several other countries are less concerned with the truth of the matter and more concerned with protecting the character of the subject of the statements.

Truth is a defence is cases of defamation in England (I assume Scottish law is the same). The problem lies in proving that what you said was true. The reform the UK needs is protection for non-malicious defamatory speech where you reasonably believed the statement to be true or in the public interest.

US law is undoubtedly better, which is why the UK is a favourite destination for libel tourists. The most blatant recent case was Khalid bin Mahmouz suing Rachel Ehrenfeld

It's possible that a true statement can be used to cause unjust injury to one's reputation (the basic definition of defamation), but it's a really hard thing to do in my opinion. So hard, in fact, that in US law the first criteria for libel or slander is that the statement be false. If it is true it can't legally be called defamation. The dictionary definition even implies that a defamatory statement will be false.

The injunction was against the original poster for his defamatory speech, but the original poster has no control over Ripoff Report, and Ripoff Report has no obligation to honor an injunction placed on someone else.

That is the essence of the court case, and why it came out the way it did.

Now if the original poster owned Ripoff Report, it would be an entirely different story.

"Defendant" refers to two different entities here. There's the defendant who posted the material to Ripoff Report (who was sued in the original case), and there's Ripoff Report as the defendant in this case. What happened is that the (first) defendant lost his case and was told to remove the content, and when he didn't, Ripoff Report was sued to try to make them remove it instead.

Reread the summary. They claim the 1st Amendment 'requires' them to fight this case. No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment would remain perfectly intact had they exercised some responsibility and allowed the original poster to remove or at least add a disclaimer. Everything doesn't have to be a multi-year Federal case.

And unless you are a total anarchist, we have laws against libel and defamation, etc. and we agree that Congress (and State legislatures) are within their lawful authority to make those laws.

Reread the summary. They claim the 1st Amendment 'requires' them to fight this case. No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment would remain perfectly intact had they exercised some responsibility and allowed the original poster to remove or at least add a disclaimer. Everything doesn't have to be a multi-year Federal case.

I disagree, it is essential to the use of the 1st amendment protections that a site not be required to remove materials posted by a 3rd party which turn out to be defamatory and false.

Were they to bow to the pressure then it would potentially lead to a situation where a website or newspaper could be held liable for something which somebody else posted. Enforcing their first amendment rights is really the only way to ensure that that doesn't happen.

> Were they to bow to the pressure then it would potentially lead to a> situation where a website or newspaper could be held liable...

Strawman if I ever saw one. Look at copyrights, a site isn't liable for user contributed content until the rights holder files a DMCA takedown notice. Only if the site then refuses is it possible to hold it liable. Exception being when a judge rules your site is nothing but a warez operation like in the recent Limewire fracus.

Since this is currently the highest modded "First Amendment" post, I'll critique it -- not you specifically.

[1] The government issued an injunction to remove comments from the web site that [2] the site refused to obey, [3] which puts it squarely in First Amendment territory.

[1] Yes. The trial court issued an injunction in a default judgment against the defendant (the poster, not the web site).

[2] Indirectly. The web site (correctly) argued that it was not required to follow the injunction, because it was neither the defendant nor a party "in active concert or participation" with the defendant. There is a rule of the Federal Courts, FRCP 65(d) [cornell.edu], that constrains the courts' ability to issue judgments affecting those who are not parties to the case. The district court followed it. The plaintiff took this up on appeal.

[3] No. 47 USC 230(c)(1) [cornell.edu] says that the web site cannot be treated as the speaker, and apparently cannot be compelled to remove content (other than through mechanisms like the DMCA takedown notice existing in other statutes). It would/will be interesting to see if the web site could be compelled to take down content if it was defamatory and the defendant was seeking to have it taken down. However, that is not the case. Nobody has proved that the content is defamatory in a way that binds the web site to that conclusion, and the defendant is apparently MIA.

This is not a first amendment issue, it is first an issue of compliance with judicial rules, and second a statutory issue involving ISP/ICS immunity. The courts will not consider something a constitutional issue if it can be resolved solely though existing rules and statutes. Whatever policy or rhetorical relationship there is with the first amendment, this case has been decided purely based upon legislated laws.

Unless the courts are now private entities, the website resisting a court order to take down speech protected by the 1st amendment, it most certainly IS protecting it. Much like AT&T et. al. were complicit in the violation of the 4th amendment when they assisted the NSA in a domestic spying operation.

The website isn't really REQUIRED by the 1st amendment to leave the post up, but it did feel called upon by the spirit of the 1st amendment to do so.

There was a court injunction involved. I don't see how that can be interpreted in any way other than a branch of the government (the court) being used to restrict free speech.

For what it's worth, the injunction wasn't even against the website, it was against the poster, so the suit was on shaky ground to start with (which is why Ripoff Report refused to take the post down in spite of the injunction - the felt it didn't apply to them, and the court

It's an honest question since I know nothing about this website. I thought this court motion [scribd.com] from the defendants was very interesting, especially this part:

"Xcentric encourages consumers to post complaints about companies, while at the same time offering its “services” to help these companies improve their image -- for a fee. Xcentric’s practices are controversial. In one recent lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that Xcentric “actively solicit[s] defamatory content from third parties an

Agreed. Although the judge ruled that the history of the matter may be kept, there are several items that trouble me:

ROR holds an original (false) claim by a poster, defaming citizen. It also holds the follow-up, most of which is useless banter, and then a legalese summary of the matter.

ROR seems to be taking the position of "historical records holder" instead of "discussion facilitator". But by providing a forum for each post, the line seems blurred. Essentially, they seem to represent a mock "

Not only does ROR refuse to comply with the original order because it was not a party to it, but the original order was entered as default judgement. Legally it's a finding, but in reality the judge didn't get a chance to hear evidence and make a decision - the original defendents never appeared.

A cautionary tale. You really should answer lawsuits. You have nothing to lose if the alternative is to ignore it and let the court issue default judgement. And you might at least catch a sympathetic judge who w

In Halifax we have The Coast which did the complete opposite. Not only did they not roll right over but they didn't even send a lawyer to defend their having to release the information on anonymous posters. They said something like, "The judge will make a good decision." Hello, in Canada, we too have an adversarial court system where without a defense the plaintiff will win the day.
So Bravo Ripoff Report and burn in hell Coast Magazine.

After reading the court's decision, which emphasized the absence of any activity by ROR after the injunction, they were probably unwise to edit the original posting by pre-pending updates about the progress of the case. Now, the plaintiff could argue, they took actual action (editing and re-posting) after the injunction.They would have been wiser to move the original (intact) to another URL and redirect the original to the new statement with links to the original at its new URL, possibly even adding some J

It is obviously a principle issue since they talk about the first Amendment and their principle is that they do not remove posts(no qualifications), they stuck to their principles and didn't remove it. The court held that they are true to their word, and certainly did not act in concert or participation with any other party(including court orders, which serves to strengthen their case on appeal in my mind).

It is obviously a principle issue since they talk about the first Amendment and their principle is that they do not remove posts(no qualifications), they stuck to their principles and didn't remove it. The court held that they are true to their word, and certainly did not act in concert or participation with any other party(including court orders, which serves to strengthen their case on appeal in my mind).

That's possibly because of an inadequate understanding of the site. The website owners, by their actions and requirements, create an uneven playing field that favors those who make such inaccurate statements, by making it either costly or impossible for those maligned to post counterstatements or corrections.

While this may also seem a First Amendment win, it's also something that can be perverted into a tool to malign anyone or any company with full knowledge that such statements will not be taken down, a

I know a person who who was hurt by this. She is a wedding photographer and was unable to meet the increasingly demanding requests of a Bridezilla, who then posted an extremely negative review on ripoff report which contained numerous falsehoods. Even after Bridezilla recanted and wanted to take it down, the website won't remove the comments.

I personally do not see what free speech or the first amendment have to do with not letting anything be taken down, even if the author wants it taken down.

Some sites allow users to edit or remove their posts. Some, like Slashdot, do not. I'm not sure what would happen if I posted something so stupid that I felt the need to email a Slashdot mod to remove my comment, but people need to realize that just like screaming something foolhardy at work or in public, posting something on the internet never really goes away. Even if the mod did take down my comment, Google and a handful of other indexing sites have recorded it, etc.

If the statements posted by Bridezilla were factually false, the photographer probably has a case for libel. Perhaps some might think suing the bride after she recanted would be wrong- to those, I redirect to the first paragraph of my post.

The first amendment has nothing to do with ripoff reports' terms of use: there is absolutely no logical connection whatsoever between freedom of speech/first amendment and whether or not a website allows you to perform certain operations on their servers that will alter the appearance of one of their webpages. Completely disjoint issues.

However, the first amendment/free speech considerations do, quite arguably, have a strong bearing on whether or not a website operator should be allowed to either speak f

If that's the site's policy and they consistently adhere to it, then why is it the site's problem? Sure it sucks for whomever was defamed but that goes back on the person who posted the defamatory statements in the first place. It's worth pointing out that this particular aspect of the case only concerns the forum in which the statement was made. The person who makes the defamatory post is 100% responsible for what they said. The fact that the defendant knowingly posted a false statement to a website th

They fought to protect a statement found false in federal court? Why keep it up then if it isn't true in the first place? I can understand the whole "We didn't have our day in court" deal, but it's a lie to start with. You won, but you're still publishing a lie, at least of some sort.

They came first for the Communists and I didnt speak up because I wasn't a Communist.They they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Its right to fight censorship and oppression even when it targets the fringe. Even if it means defending "liars", the KKK, flag burning, and pornography. If you let them come after those, and set precedents, its going to be a much harder fight when they come after you.

Its right to fight censorship and oppression even when it targets the fringe.

And by "fringe" you mean defamers? A type of speech that has never been ruled to be protected by the 1st amendment? Not to mention that common law tradition stretches back hundreds of years prior with precedents declaring that defamation can carry civil and/or criminal penalties?

Does the New York Times go back and redact the microfilm version of their paper? Or do they print a correction?

Why jump to erase history? Just because it is easier to do than in the past?

Ah yes... the correction ripoffreports WONT post? That correction? Or the correction that the maligned party must PAY MONEY TO POST? That one? The one that's VERY difficult to actually get on ripoffreports, and gets reviewed to be determined if ripoffreports will allow it? That correction? The correction that cannot cite WHO the loser who broke the law in their initial claim is? That correction?

I think you need to visit the original [ripoffreport.com] reports [ripoffreport.com].

Attached to each of them is an extremely detailed account of the case, complete with links to relevant court documents and an explanation of their actions. Far, far more information is provided than any NY Times redaction that I've ever seen.

See the problem now?

What I'm seeing is a system that is working. Ripoffreports has a blatant lie on their site, are reluctant to edit it, get dragged into court and as a result of all of this the page gets updated with the full story. That's a

I have a friend who was maligned by an ex-coworker. He has been told he has to pay money to post a redaction.

You have always been able to post a free rebuttal. The fee is if you want to use an arbitrator to determine what parts of a complaint are untrue and then update the post with this information. The fee is high ($2000) IMHO, but then again you are paying for an actual arbitrator to review the facts... certainly one wouldn't expect the website to absorb the cost, but you'd think the fee would be time-based rather than flat.

The ex-coworker has already publicly admitted their post was... "incorrect" (knowingly not factual, ligitatable, etc). My friend still has to pay if he wants to post a rebuttal, and the ex-coworker's post will remain there forever.

If the ex-coworker is being cooperative now, why not have them go over and update the re

And when the defamers are convicted and ordered to take down the defamatory posts, which 3rd party webhost refuses to do?

How exactly does your argument work here?

If the court didn't order ripoffreports to take down the posts and they refused to do it... that would be simple, they would be in contempt of court, and all sorts of enforcement actions are available to the court.

However the court agreed that ripoffreports did not have to take down the posts, so what exactly is your complaint about ripoffreports h

I’d be willing to settle for having the original content updated in such a way to guarantee that anyone finding the defamatory content would also see the updated note stating that the content was deemed false and defamatory. Apparently the courts agreed, and apparently ripoffreports had done this, so it’s more or less remedied. In this case.

If the court didn't [I assume you mean DID] order ripoffreports to take down the posts and they refused to do it... that would be simple, they would be in contempt of court

Note, I didn’t say the court ordered 3rd party webhost to take down the posts: the court ordered the individual to take down the posts. Therefore the webhost is not in any way in contempt of court until said individual takes them to court over the matter; then 3rd party webhost might be ordered to either take it down, post a redaction, or make some other conciliatory action. But until the individual sues the webhost, they don’t legally really have to do anything.

If I understand TFA correctly, the 3rd party website doesn't even allow the post authors to remove their own posts.

Taking the defamer to court will achieve precisely nothing if the content can't be removed once the court case is complete.

Right the problem here is that the website wasn't taken to court. An injunction was issued against the poster not the website, and the plaintiff tried to use it on the website who is an unrelated 3rd party. The plaintiff (and poster) both can attempt to take the site to cou

Big differences in your examples and rebuttals. Slashdot does indeed allow for things to be taken down. Perhaps you have not participated in that procedure, but it does exist and does happen. Also, it's a lot different than continuing a crime (as ripoffreports does, if the reports are correct) by posting speech deemed illegal. It also continues the liability of the original poster who is not allowed to remove their own comment. Explain the reasoning that allows that. Or do you not realize that "continued da

My point was that this particular slashdot article is generating publicity for the illegal act, while generating itself some ad revenue, etc.

Also, it's a lot different than continuing a crime (as ripoffreports does, if the reports are correct) by posting speech deemed illegal. It also continues the liability of the original poster who is not allowed to remove their own comment.

Oh, yes, agreed on all counts, I was just pointing out what I pointed out. No

A type of speech that has never been ruled to be protected by the 1st amendment?

Ruled by whom? The first amendment, or by a random judge who doesn't know the meaning of interpretation (it doesn't mean "change the meaning of"). I see nothing that says that defamation isn't protected speech in the first amendment. It isn't true free speech if you limit certain forms of speech.

That would be a valid line of reasoning if we didn't have 200+ years of interpretation of the constitution to tell us that it isn't a literal interpretation that counts. I realize that the right likes to claim that if it isn't literally there under their interpretation that it isn't there, but that's not true.

A type of speech that has never been ruled to be protected by the 1st amendment?

Oh, this is just precious. First you have a law protecting all speech. Then you have courts making exceptions on speech they don't like. Now we've come to the point where speech is not protected unless a court specifically declares it is.

I disagree. I don't think protecting all things people say is necessary to protect most things people say. But, I don't think in absolute terms, so that's just how I roll.

For instance, I don't think we need to protect the right of people to scream obscenities at the funerals of soldiers, in order to protect the right of people to voice their opposition to government policies.

It's not a slippery slope, it's more like a nice, light gradient on a hill with paved steps up the side, and hand rails. It's easy to

I'm of a couple of minds on the free speech issue. On the one hand, I agree with you. It should be fairly obvious when speech should be protected, and when it doesn't need protection. On the other hand, abusing the court system is far, far too easy. It's would be too easy for a political candidate to bring about charges of slander or libel, forcing someone to spend money defending themselves. Even bringing about the case is a slap in the face of free speech. And I don't think we can just stop whenever

Slander and libel are civil torts; basically, when you say or publish something false about someone, and your false statements cause harm to that person, they can sue you. And you can be ordered to pay them for the harm you caused, and ordered by a court to stop saying or publishing the false things that harmed that person.

And this isn't government restricting speech; it's basically no different than, say, a court ordering you to pay someone because you threw a brick through their window,

Except that the government is involved and they're ordering you to censor speech due to the actions of another, correct? I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't support (for example) the ability for someone to sue someone else merely because the other person said something that they disagreed with, all because the lawsuit is started by people and not the government.

Lets say I post to a website details that you are a violent child molesting rapist, with sufficient details to identify you. You might lose your job, your neighbours might get cross with you, women refuse to talk to you, etc. You take me to court and a court agrees that I have no reason to be saying what I'm saying. But the website I posted this too refuses to take down the offensive material. Your employers can still read it, your neighbours can

Lets say I post to a website details that you are a violent child molesting rapist, with sufficient details to identify you.

And if the website is hosted in another country, their is going to be VERY little I can do about it directly. That's the futility of this whole argument, the courts are powerless if the site is outside their jurisdiction, so if you want to do this, it will be pretty easy for you.

Libel laws are there to protect you from malicious lies. Its right and proper that a website should resist t

They fought to protect a statement found false in federal court? Why keep it up then if it isn't true in the first place? I can understand the whole "We didn't have our day in court" deal, but it's a lie to start with. You won, but you're still publishing a lie, at least of some sort.

Are you suggesting that people should yield to those who claim something is found false? That is wishy-washy ground you stand on. Say a site dedicated to AGW publishes a study showing a positive correlation to technological growth and increased global warming.

Another group comes out and claims the studies methodologies are incorrect, inherently making the conclusions drawn false. Enter beatnik judge/jury who rules in favor of a take-down because of the ruled 'false-ness'. Should we be the arbitrators of 'truthiness' of all published data, especially if it is from a private entity?

If I start a website called oneplusoneequalsthree.com, and it is proved false through the axioms of arithmetic, do you suggest that if I was brought to court I should just give up since I have been proven wrong? This is a strength, and I may be off base with the topic, but I believe in a free society in which there is no censorship by the government, the corporations, or the courts.

Lately it has seemed that free speech has only been free as long as it doesn't piss anybody off. This ruling is a step back in the positive direction.

now go after the third-party site for copyright infringement for continuing to post my copyrighted post after I revoked their permission to use it

Could you? Don't you have to agree to their terms of service before you post (or at the very least, it's available on their website)? I'm pretty sure that, unless they state otherwise, you can't just agree to the terms and then later change your mind. I'm not sure on that, though.

Now, here's the fun part: I, as the original poster, could (in theory) now go after the third-party site for copyright infringement for continuing to post my copyrighted post after I revoked their permission to use it, barring any agreement between the two parties that give them publishing right in perpetuity. Should I so choose, that is.

Uh... no you can't. You don't get to "revoke permission" for something you have already given them permission to publish. You can request that they remove it, but they don't have to comply. Even if there is a court order against you to remove it, they still don't have to remove it. That's the whole point of this 7th circuit decision.

By posting on their website you implicitly gave them permission to use your statement with no strings attached. You don't get to attach strings later. This is a fundament

If their policy is to be, essentially, a public write-once-read-many record to consumer interactions with businesses(which it seems to be) protecting their right to continue that policy seems both perfectly logical and, frankly, to be in the public interest.

It is not at all uncommon for businesses to apply various sorts of suasion, either positive(take down your comment and we'll throw in a free XYZ.." or coercive(take down your comment or we'll sue/report you as a bad buyer/scotch your warranty/whatever). Anybody who has spent time on ebay should be familiar with the phenomenon. Thus, making reports irrevertable likely keeps that to a minimum.

More broadly, there is a much more basic, and vital consideration at stake: Historically, there have existed various common venues that, in general, were never considered responsible for the behavior that occurred on them(If a piece of land, say, is owned by the state or somebody who has never seen it in his life and it has existed as a public right-of-way for 200 years, who are you going to punish, other than the guilty parties themselves, for the fact that something bad happened on it? The idea is barely plausible, and certainly not practical.) On the internet, clearly a vital communication medium of the present and future, there are no such "natural commons". If somebody doesn't maintain the server and pay the bandwidth bills, any internet venue will vanish into the ether within months, at most. All "spaces" on the internet have an owner(at most, an owner who exploits jurisdictional blind spots to try to stay out of sight; but there are no "commons").

If web operators are not given a degree of impunity for material that they happen to host; but have no other relation to, the results will be unpleasant: On a purely practical level, censorship of anything more than some tiny little hobby forum is extremely expensive. Say goodbye to any largely-automated online services. This is why even the DMCA, almost wholly an odious giveaway to the most reactionary of IP lobbyists, recognizes "safe harbor".

In an analogous vein, so long as ripoffreports does not purport to speak for the truth of the statements, merely to provide a venue for making them, suppressing them, would be analogous to forcing landowners to control the speech of anybody they let use their land, even if they do so on a "free public access" basis...

Never been to ripoff report, but does the site allow a retort, a citation of the proven lies in a comment, Personally in my experience the best remedy to a lie is to counterballance it with the truth, not to attempt to shut the lie up.
Now admitted I am probably a minority but to me logically.
Person A: The world is flat
Person B: The world is not flat, here is evidence, here is a picture of the world from other angles, here is a peer reviewed science report explaining such
You keep person A's lie there,

Kind of.
(1) You must pay to make such a post
(2) Your report cannot cite specifics that may indicate the author of the illegal complaint (thus in this case, the company could not say "John Doe was found guilty of libel over this post, and here's why")
(3) such posts are reviewed and approved (or not) by ripoffreports. Their criteria is pretty vague.

The site seems hell bent on and built upon the idea of making money off negative publicity, with little concern for counterclaims and positive publicity (possi

You must be British. If only verifiably true free speech is protected, then someone (in this case the government) has to determine what is true and what is false. One need only look back at the Bush II administration to see the potential problem with that.

The principle of the first amendment is free speech. It may bind only the government, but that's not to say that it's a nonsense for a private entity to voluntarily uphold the principle as well.I don't think it was ever intended that the government being the only entity against which a person has an enforceable right to protection of freedom speech should mean that free speech should naturally exist nowhere else.

"Free speech" isn't a black & white issue - it's constantly under flux throughout all layers of the US legislative branch.

This site may support free speech, but the format they deliver their content doesn't quickly address slanderous posts. For example, if an urban myth of somewhat repulsive content about a single real person were to arise, Snopes.com would carry it. But they'd make it quite easy to discern the truth or falsity of the entire situation (or particular details). ROR takes the po

it's constantly under flux throughout all layers of the US legislative branch.

It certainly isn't supposed to be, is it? Would I be incorrect if I stated that the constitution (especially the bill of rights) is supposed to be interpreted, and not changed completely? I believe that is the power (interpretation) that the supreme court has, is it not? It's very clear about freedom of speech. There's really no room for interpretation there (going by what is written in the constitution).

Also, as I said, you can't claim to have free speech without allowing all kinds of speech. Otherwise it

Not exactly, you can still be held responsible for the content of your post and be required to remove it if you are able. The website, however, cannot be required to remove it as a result of the findings against you.

Is it? I can prove, yes, really, that significant portions of most religious texts are factually wrong and at the same time, I can make a good case for them being defamatory. In your mind that makes it OK for me to ban all publishing of said religious texts? Do you really think I should be allowed to ban the publishing of the bible and force all the publishers to collect all bibles and burn them?